The Midhurst Development Plans Lovefest

It was like yesteryear and everyone from the developers of Midhurst were well prepared and our unwitting staff and council were eating out of their hands. Everyone was, as they say in England, “kicking the ball in the same direction”.

On October 23 at the Simcoe County Museum with coffee and timbits, the new city of Midhurst was unveiled by the developers. In a word, it is a beautiful development and great planning if it were in Barrie, Orillia, Midland or Alliston. It is not the typical small developments we have seen in Springwater since the beginning of rural living by urban workers. This is no Snow Valley or even the new large Yorkwood development on Sunnidale. The City of Midhurst is simply massive and unprecedented for a small rural municipality.

 

I was surprised to see our Mayor Linda Collins lead off the festivities and CAO Robert Brindley speak to the order of the development process. A layperson had no doubt that the Springwater Council was in 100% support of everything that was presented and the landowners group did a great job at conducting the orchestra. Few would understand that the command performance of all councillors being present that two of them are opposed to what is planned. Only Hanna and Ritchie have had the courage to push back the tide of the runaway train called the Midhurst Secondary Plan.

I spent a lot of time speaking with the developer’s experts and they were well prepared and answered all my questions openly and honestly. To be frank much more honestly and informed than the answers I have received from some of the elected officials.

The first question I had was quite simple, “Why build such a large development in Midhurst instead of Barrie which is a designated primary settlement area? Straight forward answer. The province is running out of development land and the landowners group and developer don’t own land in Barrie. The developers saw an opportunity and through lobbying and salesmanship convinced those in power that developing a city in Midhurst was a good idea. I don’t make that remark as a criticism of the developer, but I do criticize our council and staff for not properly defending the rural landscape and needs of our township. Developers are in business to build houses. That is what they do. They answer to investors and shareholders and owners the same as any business does. They, unfortunately for us, are doing a great job for their stakeholders. I suggest you read the recent Christopher Hume article, Toronto Star, Oct. 27, 2013 for a better overview of the problem with urban sprawl.

It was clear from the beginning that the designer has a lot of experience and has created wonderful community designs for urban centres. It was painfully clear that the Midhurst rural landscape is designed to be a future city landscape when the bulldozers move in. That is just the way it is and I offer no criticism about the design. My criticism has always been that these mega developments have no place in rural municipalities and it was never the intent of the province to permit this urban sprawl. I went as far as to say to the developers that I like their city designs and if I wanted to be a city dweller I would love to live in one of their developments. I also told them that, unfortunately for them, I chose to live in a rural community away from urban sprawl, so their development plans are unwelcomed by most of those directly impacted.

I did clarify and received confirmation that based on the Altus Report of 2009 that the Landowners Group and developers will pay for all the new infrastructure related to their planned mega growth. That is good, as I could not get lucid answers that made sense from our township. The developers lawyer did emphasize that it must be growth related to their developments and that raises a little red flag as I do believe their version of growth related infrastructure costs and the township’s vision may be different tunes from the same hymn book. I hope that gets clarified in the EA 3 and 4 studies. I won’t do my math right now but just point out that the initial infrastructure is $100M paid for by the landowners and developers. The replacement and maintenance will come from our taxes. Keep in mind that 50 years from now the replacement cost will be $250M based on an annualized inflation rate of 2%. That’s means we must set aside about $5M a year to have the funds to replace it and probably another $5M a year to maintain and operate it. These costs come from our tax dollars not development charges! That is a little scary and has been the cause of concern for Barrie, Mississauga and Vaughan which has resulted in huge fiscal deficits and tax increases. Currently we have an annual infrastructure deficit of about $2.5M which we started to borrow to keep on track. That part of the debt will grow by about $10M during the term of this council at the current rate.

The engineer informed me that the wastewater treatment plant discharge into Willow Creek will represent as much as a 30% increase in volume in a low flow situation. That somewhat shocked me and I hope the NVCA and MOE address what could become an ecological disaster. News on CTV this week states that there is a growing concern in regard to the water quality of the Nottawasga Watershed. Nancy Chong from Midhurst wrote a great article recently about other affected species. This mega development will not enhance it. When questioned about the phosphorus, the engineer stated there are new technologies but they are very expensive. So how much will this water treatment plant really cost in the end and what will be the impact on our taxes as it is operated and maintained? I know if someone gave me a two million dollar home, I could  not afford the heat, the hydro and the taxes. If the developer pays in excess of a $100M for infrastructure, will the operating cost have the same impact on us as a township. Will we get something free but cannot afford to operate it and maintain it unless we double our taxes?

It is unfortunate that there was not an open question period at the meeting, but as I said the landowners and developers paid the orchestra to play the tunes they wanted us to hear. I quite enjoyed my discussions with some of the key people and I will continue to meet with them and ask the questions that should be routine from our elected officials. It is unfortunate that only Hanna and Ritchie are concerned about the possible impacts of the mega developments around Midhurst. I don’t understand the blind embracement of the MSP plan by the rest of council, as I can see no net benefit. It will be harmful to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of the township and each of us as residents. Ironically the Living Green Environmental Action Barrie eco friendly organization that sent a number of glowing letters in 2009 supporting the development of the City of Midhurst have now withdrawn all those letters. I would think that our council would pause and find out why that happened, but not much was said when the withdrawal letter was received at last Monday’s Planning Meeting.

Keep informed. Read this wonderful newspaper we have. Ask the township to include you on the mailing or email list to receive all information regarding the developments of the Midhurst area. Please come to Council and Planning meetings as you must decide who you think should be running this township when you vote next year in the municipal election.

It is great that many more people are attending the meetings as residents throughout the township are beginning to realize that the mega developments and creation of the City of Midhurst will impact each and everyone of us.

A special mention of all those that did attend the open house and asked some challenging questions to those present. We all must keep informed and start asking our council why are they so convinced that this new City of Midhurst is a positive move for Springwater.

My Opinion-Springwater's Answers to Questions on the Midhurst Mega Development Pt 2

This is Part 2 of a multi part series that will appear every two weeks until I have addressed all the answers to the many questions from the public on the Midhurst mega developments.

 

In this article we will look at more of the questions and then the somewhat distorted and at times misleading answers.

Question 9: Is the 2004 Growth Management Study the foundation of the Midhurst Secondary Plan?

Township answer: Yes the 2004 Report is the foundation of the Midhurst Secondary Plan (MSP)

Question 11: What were the population forecasts for Springwater and endorsed by Council

Township Answer: They refer to page 40 of the council endorsed report and then mention the Places to Grow and associated regulations

My Opinion: the intent in 2004 was to plan for another 3049 units and about 6,000 to 8,000 new residents to 2031. Page 40 of the report is clear that the number of new residential units would be 3049 (not 10,000). It was only through the lobbying efforts of the heads of both this council and the previous council with pressure from influential landowners that the concept of up to 30,000 more people came into play. They simply took the large amount of land that was in the study area, made it a settlement area and maximized the number of homes per hectare. It was never the intent of the 2004 plan nor was it the intent of the Province to build new cities in rural Ontario. If not for the “special rule” of 2012, the MSP could not continue. That “special rule” only occurred because of the lobbying of our current heads of council. Growth was not mandated by the Province but was to be better planned than in the past 50 years.

Question 12: What are the current taxpayers gaining from the MSP?

Township answer: More of a complete community, broader types of housing and so on. They speak of imaginary jobs but no explanation of where they will come from.

My Opinion: The existing taxpayer will pay more for everything as currently we lack services to address the needs of a small city. We will pay for full time contract policing (not the drive through policing we have today), more full time firefighters, added township staff, higher water and sewage rates just like happens in Barrie, Mississauga and Vaughan. As far as jobs, little will come to Springwater in jobs as we are located next to two designated primary settlement areas; Barrie and Wasaga Beach. Currently our Development Charges are high for the services we provide so why would business come to Springwater? The long answer that the township provides to the question is a work of fiction.

Question 18: Why would businesses locate to Springwater instead of Barrie?

Township answer: The answer includes the normal reasons for considering a location, services, land costs proximity to markets etc. No specific USP (unique selling proposition) is mentioned. They also mention their Economic Development Working Group.

My Opinion: If I were locating a business, Barrie would make more sense as it has transportation, access to main corridors and provides all the amenities anyone needs. It also has a large condensed market for goods and services. Don’t get me wrong there are many types of businesses that could be brought to Springwater but as long as you have a council that thinks in terms of urban and not rural we will never attract new businesses. Their working group and the budgeted expenditure of $82,000 for a development officer has borne very little fruit that I can see.

I am of the opinion that there needs to be more diligence as the township proceeds with the most unwanted and most costly venture it has ever encountered. The Midhurst mega developments have the potential of saddling the next few generations of Springwater-ites with the highest taxes imaginable. As the County CAO stated at their Spring Strategy Review, “Growth doesn’t pay for itself”. I guess McLean and Collins our County Councillors missed this point and they were both there.

 

These articles will also appear in the Springwater News.

My Opinion-Springwater's Answers to Question about Midhurst Mega Developments Pt 1

On May 17^th of this year the township held an information meeting and provided documents as an overview for the Midhurst Secondary Plan titled Midhurst 20/20. There was also a public open house on the Midhurst Secondary Plan EA process on May 29^th.

In September the township published its response to the questions posed and held a special council meeting on September 17^th with a hired lawyer to outline the township’s position. I am not sure why the mayor, as head of council, did not disseminate the information rather than having a $300 to $400 an hour hired help do it for her. The report and answers and meeting are on-line so check for yourself.

Over the next number of months, I will outline some of the inconsistencies and what I believe was outright misleading information that was provided at that September 17^th meeting and some of the distortions the published report contains. There were 84 responses to questions so I will deal with a few in each article. The ones I have no issue with, I will make no comment.

Question 1: Who will pay for the new Highway 400 Interchange?

Township answer: It is the responsibility of the developers.

My Opinion: Nothing has been signed signifying the developer will pay for all of these costs. If you read the ALTUS Report paid for by the Midhurst Landowners Group it suggests roads will be $17M. The Township’s director of public works provided a document in March of this year that the Midhurst Landwowners Group are responsible for $79M of road improvements. There appears to be a $62M minor discrepancy. I have got varied answers on this subject so I encourage you to ask your councilor who is paying for what and when.

Question 3: Will the Township rescind the Midhurst Secondary Plan if the financial analysis shows a significant increases in taxes?

Township Answer: No Infrastructure will be approved that has a detrimental financial impact on the Municipality.

My Opinion: The council at the end of the meeting passed a motion not to revisit or consider modifications to the Midhurst Secondary Plan. If they won’t consider rescinding it how can they make such a comment? I am also curious what is meant by “significant increases in tax”. This suggests they are willing to have you and I pay part of the cost of this council’s thirst for unneeded and unwanted growth.

Question 5 : What will the cost of infrastructure be for the first phase of development? and Question 7: The Altus Report does not seem to indicate that the developers would pay for all the infrastructure upgrades.

Township Answer: Q 5The costs are projected at approximately $100M. These costs will be fully covered by the developers. Q 7 The Statement is not correct.

My Opinion: At a public information session on May 29^th when the township consultants were present I asked one of the engineers what the cost for the first phase would be. It was stated the costs could be as much as 70% of the total buildout costs since the main infrastructure must be put in place to service the first phase and has to be designed for the full development. The Hemson Report in 2008 suggested the servicing costs would be about $172M for the full buildout. 70% of that is about $120M. Out of the gate there seems to be a $20M gap. If you read the Altus Report paid for by the Midhurst Landowners Group in 2009 they projected the costs at around $100M for scenario 4 and the report also suggests they will pay about $64M in development fees over the life of the first phase. They will pay $25M for front end costs to get things underway (which to my understanding is part of and not additional to the $64M that will be collected over the life of phase 1). That puts anywhere from a $36M to $56M debt risk on us the taxpayer if the numbers and reports are valid. Our Deputy Mayor says agreements have been signed to pay for all infrastructure. I suggest they produce those documents as I have not seen any signed agreements except for the EA’s which total $300K or .3% of the total cost. The letters that are referred to in the township’s answer to Q7 from the Landowners Group trustee are not signed letters of intent and therefore not binding. To make matters worse all the numbers are from 2008 and 2009 and I would think costs have not declined in that 5 year period.

Even though our council says the Midhurst Plan could result in $100M in lawsuits if cancelled, they must do more than stick their head in the sand and ignore the real plight they are bringing to our wonderful township. They agreed to serve us. If the job is too tough or if they lack the courage, step aside and let someone with some guts move our township in a progressive and well planned manner. The current council is rudderless and we are moving into the storm of the century unlike anything the township has ever experienced. We the electorate need to speak up and put real pressure on 5 of our council members. Only Hanna and Ritchie seem to take their responsibilities seriously and appear to be willing to take the heat to do what is right. The rest seem to like the profile but not the responsibilities that go with the job. As Ritchie said, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

I think that is enough for this article and I encourage you to ask questions and get your own answers from our elected representatives. I am of the opinion that there needs to be more diligence as the township proceeds with the most unwanted and most costly venture it has ever encountered. The Midhurst mega developments have the potential of saddling the next few generations of Springwater-ites with the highest taxes imaginable. Most of this council seem to be of the same mindset as the provincial and federal governments who are now faced with the reality that the debt they have accumulated will never be paid.

Midhurst Mega Development Open House

For those both opposed to or in support the Mega Development of up to 10,000 homes in Midhurst, put this on your calendar. All residents in Springwater Township should attend this as it is the beginning of the end for our rural way of living.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION EVENING

 

Wednesday, October 23rd

Simcoe County Museum

1151 Highway 26, Minesing

6:00 to 9:00 p.m.

The Midhurst Landowners Group invite you to a Community Information Evening.

We are the landowners – Geranium Corporation and RoseAlliance, on whose properties part of the future of Midhurst will be built.

We want to ensure that Midhurst grows in the best interests of those already here and in the best interests of those families and businesses yet to come. We are dedicated to preserving what’s best about Midhurst.

Come out and see the draft plans of subdivision and zoning by-laws, which implement the approved Midhurst Secondary Plan (OPA 38). Ask questions. Get answers.

Come hear about:

• Community design principles guiding the plans, including sustainability and smart growth.

• Planned parks, trails, and schools.

• Plans to protect the natural environment and water quality.

• Housing to meet the needs of all ages.

• New jobs to be created in construction and building supply industries.

• New revenues and development charges to reduce the tax burden on existing households.

• Expanded tax based to fund schools and parks.

The evening will include a short presentation on community design vision and philosophy followed by an open house format, which will provide an opportunity for one-on-one discussions.

All Welcome.

 

Perspective on Springwater Council

Years ago on X-files, Special Agents Scully and Mulder used to accuse the government of trying to “deceive, inveigle and obfuscate”, lest anyone discover the truth about what was really going on. 

As I watched Springwater Council in action twice this week, including the notorious Special Public Meeting on the 17^th, these iconic words came to mind.  At the Council meeting on the 16th, Rick Webster suddenly withdrew his petty motion to chill public dissent, camouflaged by the proposed naming and shaming, via taxpayer-funded legal action, of anyone indulging in so-called slanderous or libelous innuendo.  Perhaps he read Gary French’s masterful dissection of this motion in the last issue of the Springwater News, and didn’t like his portrayal.  A more alarming and sinister theory is that he lost one of his 4 votes; and thus had no choice but to withdraw his motion to avoid an embarrassing defeat.  Should we believe that’s the end of Council trying to stop commentary they don’t like?

That brings me to Question Period, a 10 minute sop to the long-suffering residents in which 5 members of the audience [I use this word literally] have 2 minutes each to ask Council about something that’s on their mind.  And to which they expect an answer right then or no later than necessary.  Do those public questions get answered?  Usually not.  Regular attendees, like myself, seriously wonder if our questions drop into a black hole, never to see the light of day again.  Then, there’s Council’s latest attempt at ham-stringing voters: they want us to ask questions relating only to that night’s agenda.  That certainly keeps the topics narrow, doesn’t it?  What if your burning interest is not on the agenda or you didn’t have a chance to read the agenda beforehand because you’re busy with real life and it was published late? 

On Tuesday, there was the sideshow of the Special Meeting, advertised to residents online and in the mail as an opportunity for Council to discuss and debate the Township lawyer’s report on the legal issues associated with the Midhurst Secondary Plan and determine next steps.  Right after the lawyer finished, Councillor Hanna asked Council to permit a Question Period.  All-knowing Mayor Collins said this wasn’t required at a Special Meeting and said no.  Clearly, in her opinion, the overflow crowd was just expected to sit there like dumb animals and let Council’s pontificating wash over them unimpeded.  After some testy discussion, it was grudgingly allowed.  Of course, the public had more questions than 10 minutes could accommodate and, therefore, wanted more time.  Well, you’d think Council had been asked to open the vaults!  More wrangling ensued among the Councillors, most vocally Councillor McConkey who said she’d okay a measly 2 additional questions because how much time did we want [read that as deserve] anyway. 

The icing on the cake was Council’s sudden introduction and quick passing – 5 to 2 [Hanna and Ritchie voted no]  - of a motion that could only have been written, let alone understood, by a lawyer [it was] to cut off any further review of past events leading to the MSP as it is today.  One reason given was that staff resources are “finite”. They can’t be expected to keep on finding answers to the many serious questions and concerns the community has about this utter travesty of good planning, can they?  And who pays their wages, again?  Well, talk about being blind-sided! This infamous motion was not listed on the agenda, the public was shocked, and word has it that not every councillor even knew about it beforehand!  Some knowledgeable folks are wondering if this motion is even legal, given the apparent lack of due process.  Whatever the facts, it was not “open and transparent”, as Council likes to describe itself.

Yes, “deceive, inveigle and obfuscate” live on in Springwater Council.  Welcome to your local government. 

 

Sandy Buxton

Collins, McLean, Clement, Webster and McConkey Agree: Growth Trumps the Wishes of Residents

On September 17^th at a special Council Meeting, slated as an update and answers to questions of Midhurst residents, turned into a resolution to stop any consideration of this Council reversing the disastrous plans for mega development in Midhurst.

Instead of the Mayor actually responding, it was left to hired legal representation to respond to the questions that were posed to council. Some blatant misinformation was provided. I will not elaborate in this article but in a series of articles I will be publishing over the next number of months, I will dissect the answers provided and outline many misleading and erroneous statements. For example the lawyer said the Province was mandating the growth and the numbers. That is not true. The province have provided forecasts to 2031 and now 2041 for what might be needed. In fact the forecasts were intended to prevent not encourage paving over farmland. The province a number of years ago realized the growth in Simcoe County was poorly planned and they found it necessary to create a special section to control it in the Places to Grow directive. Besides, schedule 7 of the Places to Grow puts a forecast for Springwater to 2031 at 24,000. Considering we are around 18,500 it suggests we will see another 5,500 new residents in Springwater by 2031. If you check the monthly planning report agenda you will see a report that suggests today that we have enough lots and development at various approval stages exceeding that 5,500 number without Midhurst’s 12,000 to 28,000 added numbers. Unfortunately a “Special Rule” unknowingly, promoted by our heads of council and the landowners, have set aside good planning principles for the sake of unnecessary and unneeded growth.

The resolution itself to me is, on one hand ill-conceived but on the other hand allows all residents to know exactly where our elected officials stand. I congratulate councilors Hanna and Ritchie for not caving in to the intimidation of possible lawsuits both against the Council as a whole and individual councilors. I really don’t like that kind of scare tactic which I think swayed the Clement and McConkey vote in the end.

The reality at this point is that the only signed agreement in place to proceed with the Midhurst Secondary Plan and mega developments is an agreement with the landowners to pay for the Environmental Assessments at an estimated cost of $300,000. There are no written agreements for the cost of infrastructure (estimated at $100,000,000 for the first phase), only letters of position. Deputy Mayor McLean has referred to these letters as “Letters of Intent”. McLean with his many years of experience well knows letters of intent, which are always subject to reaching an agreement are only binding if signed by both parties. The letters I have seen are not letters of intent and have been provided by the landowners representative for guidance purposes. If there are any such letters of intent for the cost of infrastructure then produce them.

The Midhurst Plan can be stopped but it needs a political will and that does not exist in this council. Regardless of where you live in Springwater this Midhurst development will have long reaching negative impacts on your taxes and your way of life. Get involved as we have an out of control freight train that is heading for a very dangerous curve and no one is at the controls. If we all get on board we can slow down the process and allow the voters at the next election to make the final decision by replacing those that do not have the best interests of all Springwater Residents in mind.

Why Won’t this Council Reconsider the Midhurst Secondary Plan? Special Meeting!

 

*Don’t miss Sept 16 Council or the Sept 17 Special Midhurst Meetings.* 

I really appreciated the letter from Margaret Prophet from Midhurst in the last edition of SN. Her concern for costs and long term impacts are legitimate and well founded. The one disagreement I have is her assumption that the developers could sue the township if the township stopped the development plans is not totally correct.

It is obvious that the Midhurst Secondary Plan (MSP) would have been cancelled if not for the Amendment 1 and 2 of the Places to Grow Provincial Policy. Both the province and the county objected to the growth numbers of the MSP as they did not meet the population criteria of either the IGAP or original Places to Grow guidelines. If not for the Special Transition Rule for Midhurst, even the first phase of the development could not proceed. It does illustrate how much influence the large development community has on planning in our local municipalities.

It is clear in the Municipal Act and the Planning Act that the council is immune to lawsuits for things that have not been approved. Remember, the worst case scenario saw the approval of a future settlement area in Midhurst even though the people in the know say it was never a settlement area but a planning area. However the Plan which was hastily rammed though by the last Council, which included the current Mayor and Ward 1 Councillor, did not include phasing or controls of buildout such as where and when and what numbers would be permitted. These are all policies that the Township has full control over. The Township can get itself in hot water if it approves site plans and rezones land and then changes its mind. Since none of that has not occurred or been approved, the Township, if there was any political will, can reverse this catastrophic ill-conceived Midhurst Secondary Plan if it chooses to do so. I encourage Midhurst and all residents of Springwater to get into the discussion. The negative impact as noted by Ms. Prophet will increase everyone’s taxes and definitely increase water and sewer rates for those on municipal services in all areas of Springwater.

On September Tuesday 17^th at 5:30 there is a public information session to answer a number of unanswered questions about the Midhurst Mega development plans. You should make a point of being at the meeting regardless of where you live in Springwater.

We are one year away from choosing new leadership in Springater and it is definitely needed. Give yourself an opportunity to judge for yourself what some of these elected officials are doing with your hard earned tax dollars. See if you agree that some of them are destroying the very fabric of our rich rural based municipality through their lack of vision or concern when making decisions. The long term negative impacts of the decisions they are making today will not be easily revered even if we toss them out of office.

Now is the time for all of us to act and put pressure on our elected to make the right decisions to the benefit of all stakeholders. Tell them to not cave into the pressures of outsiders who have no long term consequence of the poor decisions of the 2010-2014 council.

As an added note I also encourage you to attend the next Council Meeting on Monday September 16^th at 5:30 where the infamous Webster/McLean motion will be tabled to have the Township chase people like me and pay lawyers to do so when we write things that they don’t agree with. It is of course under the guise of Slander and Libel a partial duplication of already clearly defined laws and remedies by provincial and federal statutes. The key is that they want to sic lawyers on people without being vetted by council as would be the current procedure. I am still hoping one other person will join Hanna, McConkey and Ritchie to defeat this unnecessary power. I hope saner heads will prevail and the motion is rejected as was the last ill-conceived motion to pay a communication company thousands of dollars to help this council effectively make itself look good. That approach failed miserably for the County with their expensive communication company that was trying to sell Site 41 as a good idea and a number of local Mayors and Deputy Mayors were punished for it..

These two upcoming meetings will also allow you to consider if you think Webster and McLean, the drivers of recent events, are acting like senior leaders in our local government. My opinion is that I expect to see them on the ballot the next time and one or both I suspect will shoot for the highest office.